The Act defines the term "sex offender" as including these pre-Act offenders. ... It says that "[a] sex offender shall register." ... And it further says that "[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter ...." ... In our view, these provisions, read together, mean that the Act's registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General specifies that they do apply.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Juvenile Male [JURIST report] that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had no authority to rule that the requirements SORNA violate the ex post facto [Cornell LII backgrounder] clause of the Constitution when applied to juveniles adjudicated as delinquent before SORNA's enactment. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Carr v. United States [JURIST report] that the failure to register provision of SORNA does not apply retroactively to offenses occurring before SORNA's enactment.

The Maldives has faced ongoing political difficulties following the adoption of its constitution [JURIST report] in late 2008. President Mohamed Nasheed defeated longtime political opponent Maumoon Abdul Gayoon [BBC profile], who had jailed him numerous times during his 30-year rule. However, opposition legislators have blocked the ruling party's legislative agenda, leaving certain crucial provisions of the new constitutional system unestablished. This resulted in the resignation of Nasheed's entire cabinet [BBC report] in June 2010. The Maldives Constitution [text, PDF] provides for multi-party elections, an independent judiciary and grants more authority to the legislature. It also enumerates fundamental rights of citizens and establishes several special commissions on issues relating to human rights and corruption.

While fully recognizing the right and duty of states to protect their people and territory from terrorist acts, I remind all branches of the US Government of their obligation under international human rights law to ensure that individuals deprived of their liberty can have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed before a court. Where credible evidence exists against Guantanamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted. Otherwise, they must be released.

January marks the tenth anniversary of operations at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST report]. The first detainees arrived in 2002 as "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror declared after 9/11 [JURIST backgrounder]. There are currently 171 detainees [NYT docket] being held at Guantanamo. The Obama administration originally wanted suspected terrorists to be tried before a federal civilian court, but changed its position after Congress imposed a series of restrictions [JURIST reports] barring the transfer of detainees to the US despite repeated appeals from rights groups to utilize civilian courts over military commissions. In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] stated that the main goal of the administration is to hold the people responsible [JURIST report] for 9/11 accountable in the most effective way possible.

The FMIA regulates slaughterhouses' handling and treatment of nonambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process. California's §599f endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place—except by imposing different requirements. The FMIA expressly preempts such a state law.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November and seemed skeptical that there was no overlap in the purposes of the two laws. The court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in the case in June. The provisions of the California law were considered and expressly rejected by federal regulators because they eliminate certain federally required ante-mortem inspection of possibly diseased animals. The California legislature enacted the law to control the treatment of nonambulatory animals after a 2008 undercover video [warning: graphic content] released by the Humane Society of the United States [advocacy website] showed slaughterhouse employees dragging, kicking and applying electric shocks to sick animals to move them.

In sum, reasonable police officers in petitioners' position could have come to the conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permitted them to enter the Huff residence if there was an objectively reasonable basis for fearing that violence was imminent. And a reasonable officer could have come to such a conclusion based on the facts...

The court also upheld the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment in its 2009 ruling in Michigan v. Fisher [opinion, PDF], which reversed and remanded [JURIST report] a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that found officers violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home. The case arose when officers called to the home of Jeremy Fisher found a dented vehicle outside the home and blood on the vehicle and on clothing inside the vehicle. They observed Fisher through a window throwing objects and one of the officers entered the home, at which time Fisher pointed a rifle at the officer. Fisher was charged with assault and possession of a firearm during a felony and sought to suppress the officer's statement, arguing that the entry was illegal.

Last month, the Croatian government signed a treaty [JURIST report] to finalize its EU accession. The signing ceremony consisted of speeches by leaders of the EU and Croatia, as well as signing of the treaty by the 27 other member countries. The EU gave final approval [JURIST report] to Croatian membership in June after six years of negotiations. The EU suspended accession talks [JURIST report] in 2005 when it felt Croatia was not cooperating fully with International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia investigations into war crimes against its former military officers.

It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.

The court heard arguments [JURIST report] in the case in November. The government argued that under US v. Knotts [opinion text], a GPS tracker is as permissible as monitoring a car by using a beeper inside the car for tracking purposes. Respondent's attorney argued that placing the GPS in the car created a seizure of the vehicle. JURIST Guest Columnist Jim Harper [professional profile], Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, argued in a piece for JURIST that the Supreme Court should use US v. Jones as an opportunity to reaffirm Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, particularly in light of technological advances.

With respect to the crimes charged and based on the evidence placed before it, the Chamber found that the Prosecutor has established substantial grounds to believe that the crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer and persecution were committed. These crimes resulted in the death of hundreds, and the displacement of thousands of civilians from Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area, Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills.

In October, defense counsel for three Kenyan leaders charged in the ICC with inciting violence [JURIST report] after the December 2007 Kenyan elections argued that prosecutors had not fully investigated evidence that they planned to present at trial. In June, Kenyan Attorney General Amos Wako appealed [JURIST report] the refusal by the ICC to transfer the cases to Kenyan jurisdiction. In response, the ICC called for a hearing "to properly assess the desirability and feasibility of conducting the confirmation of charges hearings in the Republic of Kenya." In March, The ICC issued summons [JURIST report] for six Kenyans suspected of inciting the 2007-2008 post-election violence.